The Washington Post recently had a story (linked here) about the expanding rights for same-sex couples that is taking place across the country, despite voters banning "marriage" itself.
This is a step in the right direction, but I don't necessarily think it's enough. This issue relates directly to religion because I have personally heard religious leaders calling upon their congregation to take up the flag of God and deny homosexuals their civil rights.
A common argument in favor of restrictions on gay couples is that it provides a slippery slope that leads to churches having their freedoms taken away. For example, if gay marriage was legal, a gay couple could sue a church that refuses to marry them on grounds of discrimination. I understand these fears, and think that they should be addressed- however, to say that you will take away someone's rights because you are afraid that someone else's rights may be taken away down the line is logically absurd.
Here is what I think needs to happen: 1. marriage needs to become a cultural ceremony that any religious or community leader can preside over. 2. the legal rights that come along with marriage will be provided in a court-room or government setting only 3. religious leaders should be given the explicit right to refuse to marry couples based on their own convictions.
This system would grant everyone equal rights, and if two people of the same sex want to get married, they can just find a religious leader who is willing to do it, and they also wouldn't be able to force pastors opposed to gay marriage into doing something they don't want to. Win win.
3 comments:
yeah what about the hermaphrodites?
the slippery slope fear is, upon examination, not as strong as perceived. Common examples are bestiality, which is nothing remotely close, as gay marriage still involves two consenting adults, not an animal that is unable to give consent to such a union. Likewise, polygamy is commonly used, but this too is not an entirely smooth fit, as it is common among cultures with an unequal power structure between men and women, and as such does not always involve two consenting adults. Gay marriage is simply allowing two individuals who want to try to spend the rest of their life together to have the same rights as two individuals of the opposite gender. Even all of the talk about the "negative economic consequences" are crap because they are talking about being ruined by having to provide the same benefits that they have to provide to straight couples to gay couples....Oh noes, equality is too expensive! crap.
Marriage should be religious, not government institutionalized. Keep the two separate, as in separation of church and state.
Post a Comment